Reminding ourselves of the importance of the First Amendment

The NY Times has an article today about a key difference between America and other countries in the developed world (for lack of a better term) on the issue of freedom of speech. America, according to the article, has much stronger protections for freedom of speech than countries such as Canada, Israel, and Germany. I'm not entirely comfortable with the contrasts drawn in this article, because it leaves out large chunks of Europe, specifically the UK and the scandinavian countries. But I do agree with the general idea: In America, the right to freely express yourself is held as a sacred right, and any attempts to restrict it are met with strong resistance, even if the cause is a noble one. That's why "hate crimes" or speech codes at universities, are so controversial.

The article dwells on an article in McLean's, the Canadian newsmagazine. It's odd to think of this from an American perspective, because I immediately think "Well, it's a First Amendment issue," but then I remember that it's not a First Amendment issue, because the American First Amendment does not apply in Canada.

As for why America holds free speech to be so important, the article makes some suggestions:

America’s distinctive approach to free speech, legal scholars say, has many causes. It is partly rooted in an individualistic view of the world. Fear of allowing the government to decide what speech is acceptable plays a role. So does history.

“It would be really hard to criticize Israel, Austria, Germany and South Africa, given their histories,” for laws banning hate speech, Professor Schauer said in an interview.

What the article doesn't explore, probably because it's a newspaper article and the writer doesn't have time, is that the idea of free speech has a much longer tradition in this country than just about any other. It's also much more specific. We forgot how deeply ingrained the Constitution is in our DNA. It is literally our founding document. The idea speech should be free is not an American idea: it is America. America can be defined by many things; geographical boundaries, citizens, its culture, its interests vis-a-vis other countries, but, at its most basic, America is defined by the Constitution.

This is different from other countries. What defines "France" is as much a cultural issue as a legal one. France is a country of hundreds of cheeses, many wines, great artistic traditions, etc. The same can be said of Ireland or England or Germany. Their physical boundaries and legal definitions have been fluid over the centuries.

But in America, all of those are one. The culture of this country is inexplicably tied to its legal definition. Which is tied to its physical definition, its geographical boundaries.

Who can say when France or Sweden was born? There may be a specific date when the current incarnation of the country came into being. But the origins of the cultures are lost in the mists of time.

America's cultural identity has a couple of possible starting points: 1492, when Columbus arrived here; 1620, when the Pilgrims showed up in Massachusetts; the Boston Tea Party. But America's cultural identity gelled into something distinctly "American" at the same time that its political identity was defined: July 4, 1776.

The importance for today and for debates about freedom of speech cannot be understated:

“What we’re learning here is really the bedrock difference between the United States and the countries that are in a broad sense its legal cousins,” Mr. Steyn added. “Western governments are becoming increasingly comfortable with the regulation of opinion. The First Amendment really does distinguish the U.S., not just from Canada but from the rest of the Western world.”

The difference has clear implications:

“Canadians do not have a cast-iron stomach for offensive speech,” Mr. Gratl said in a telephone interview. “We don’t subscribe to a marketplace of ideas. Americans as a whole are more tough-minded and more prepared for verbal combat.”

This is one reason I do not worry too much about "civility" in our public discourse, although I am inspired by Barack Obama's emphasis on this in his campaign, and by his personal example. I try to live up to his example.

This, more than anything, is the importance of the First Amendment; not just that it sets a legal standard, but that the legal standard lays the groundwork for a cultural standard. Even after so many years, we do not automatically accord freedom of speech in every instance. But we do automatically recognize the importance of debating it. It binds us with our fellow citizens, because it binds each of us to the system. If I deny freedom of speech to someone I hate, someone may deny it to me. Each of us therefore has an interest in maintaining the integrity of the system, and each of us has an interest in putting the system ahead of ourselves. That's the genius of the American system: we are bound to the system, and through it, to each other.